KCLUG

5 participants
3248 discussions

Re: DB2
by csappenfield＠kc.rr.com 11 Mar '05

11 Mar '05

----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Hull <dphull(a)insipid.com> Date: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:27 am Subject: Re: DB2 > Quoting Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins(a)tarcanfel.org>: > > > Ok, aparantly my brain concatenated "IBM Released a database to > Open Source" > > with "DB2 is IBM's big deal". Thanks for the clarification. > > > > There used to be a series of PC databases - DB II, DB III, DB > IV. What ever > > happened to those? > > I'm sorry to report that those are still alive and kicking... and > screaming. > -- Databases rarely ever die. If a DB application doesn't require much, people don't replace their old applications. And if it does require much, it's very difficult to switch out the underlying DB, because things like concurrency models are implemented differently in every DB.

3 2

Re: DB2
by csappenfield＠kc.rr.com 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

It's the scheme whereby the DB keeps concurrent users from stomping each other's data. So, when you switch DBs, you find things like locks where you never saw them before. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Kelsay <Brian.Kelsay(a)kcc.usda.gov> Date: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:43 pm Subject: Re: DB2 > What is a concurrency model? > It's the scheme whereby the DB keeps concurrent users from stomping each other's data. So, when you switch DBs, you find things like locks where you never saw them before.

1 0

Re: DB2
by Brian Kelsay 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

What is a concurrency model? Brian Kelsay >>> <csappenfield(a)kc.rr.com> 03/10/05 09:37AM >>> <snip> , it's very difficult to switch out the underlying DB, because things like concurrency models are implemented differently in every DB.

1 0

RE: Databases
by Brian Densmore 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: James Sissel > > > >>> There used to be a series of PC databases - DB > > II, DB III, DB IV. > > >>> Whatever happened to those? > > Better dBase products came out that were cheaper (MUCH > cheaper). Hmm... I've still got a copy of dBase IV boxed up somewhere. Maybe I should dust it off and re-install it? Nah, I remember that crazy weird interface they had. > > > What other databases have died anybody? > > It's not dead but it might as well be. The best damn > PC based database ever written. FoxPro! They were > well ahead of their time. And then Micro$oft bought > them out. FoxPro is long from dead. I've seen no less than a dozen job advertisements wanting FoxPro experts. Also saw a job advert for a Linux programmer in Wichita. I'll post/send a link if anyone is interested. I wasn't qualified, and it's a bit far to travel for me. > > They came out with a very buggy version 2.5 and then > charged you $20 for the patches which they called > version 2.6. Version 3 was a piece of crap. Version > 4 went ???? because the next version was version 5. > Starting Version 3 good old Micro$oft killed the dbase > language and put in their Visual Basic (gag, choke). > > Of course Micro$oft already had their "database" > product called Access. Which is why M$ bought FoxPro, so they could kill it. > > I pray for the day that Micro$oft goes under. You'll be praying a long time. M$ is too big and rich to go under. It might happen, but not likely in any of our lifetimes. Here's my predictions regarding M$ and Linux: Linux attains 50% of the server market - 2007 Linux attains 10% of the desktop market - 2008 Linux attains 50% of the server base - 2012 Linux attains 10% of the desktop base - 2015 Linux attains 70% of the server base - 2015 Bill Gates retires - 2020 Microsoft releases LinuxOffice - 2020 Linux attains 50% of the desktop market - 2020 Linux attains 80% of the server base - 2020 Linux attains 50% of the desktop base - 2025 Microsoft opensources Windows - 2030 Linux attains 90% of the server base - 2020 Linux attains 70% of the desktop market - 2040 Linux attains 70% of the desktop base - 2045

1 0

Re: Databases
by Brian Kelsay 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

>>> Jonathan Hutchins <> 03/09/05 05:55PM >>> On 09 March 2005 05:25 PM, Bill Cavalieri wrote: Brian Kelsay >>> There used to be a series of PC databases - DB II, DB III, DB IV. >>> Whatever happened to those? >> Relational/Object DB's negated most of the need for them, SQLite would be a >> good example. The dBASE's are still around, some utilities in Linux let >> you read/convert from dBASE formats. > Oh, right, yeah, dBASE, now apparently on version 7.5, and still going at > http://www.dbase.com . Some companies (AT&T) had a pretty big > investment in > it, I guess they've kept it going, but I don't see much demand for it in the > job market. dBASE is a cheap database, but this is the type of product that I can see disappearing soon due to lack of interest. The even cheaper or free options will wipe them out. It's sad, but it happens. And with student pricing at $99 I would kill an instructor that chose that over MySQL or Postgres. Hal, how was Btrieve wiped out? What other databases have died anybody?

2 1

Re: DB2
by Brian Kelsay 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

A database written in Java? You gotta be kidding. They released Eclipse and plugins. Eclipse is an IDE made with Java. Maybe they released some atents for OSS use that related to DB2 that caused the confusion. Brian Kelsay >>> "D. Hageman" <dhageman(a)dracken.com> 03/09/05 11:34AM >>> Hmmm.... I doubt it. They released a database written in Java, but DB2 is IBM's answer to a database for the big iron.

6 6

Re: Databases
by James Sissel 10 Mar '05

10 Mar '05

> >>> There used to be a series of PC databases - DB > II, DB III, DB IV. > >>> Whatever happened to those? Better dBase products came out that were cheaper (MUCH cheaper). > What other databases have died anybody? It's not dead but it might as well be. The best damn PC based database ever written. FoxPro! They were well ahead of their time. And then Micro$oft bought them out. They came out with a very buggy version 2.5 and then charged you $20 for the patches which they called version 2.6. Version 3 was a piece of crap. Version 4 went ???? because the next version was version 5. Starting Version 3 good old Micro$oft killed the dbase language and put in their Visual Basic (gag, choke). Of course Micro$oft already had their "database" product called Access. IMHO, the biggest piece of coding shit ever written. So they aren't pushing FoxPro. I've unfortunately used Access from Version 2.0 up to now Version 2003 (when are we going to stop this naming for the year BS?) You'd think they could get it right in that amount of time. I pray for the day that Micro$oft goes under.

1 0

RE: Oracle
by Brian Densmore 09 Mar '05

09 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Wiles > > ... > > Oracle is really only necessary if you need to run a HUGE database > across multiple servers. Otherwise, it's just a waste of money. > Unless you get it for free. ;') But really that comparison is hardly just. Oracle is not cheap, but there is a lot more to Oracle than just the RDB, and there are other factors to consider than just size and distribution. However, I'd probably not recommend Oracle for a new implementation if MySQL or PostgreSQL could handle the data and load expected of the implementation. Including future needs. No sense in going with MySQL if you are expecting to get the outsourcing contract for Wal-Mart's inventory database. ;')

7 7

RE: Oracle
by Brian Densmore 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Hull > > Quoting Brian Densmore <>: > > > I recently acquired an older version of Oracle (v. 8i). > > I was wondering if it might be possible to load it on > > a Linux box? Or if I need to break out the NT cd's? > > I haven't even opened the shrink-wrap yet. I was thinking > > about using it at home for projects, or possibly on an > > alternate PC for access by my webserver. > > You can download Oracle from Oracle for free and use it for > development > (non-production) work. Right, I knew that, but this is a fullblown shrink-wrapped enterprise level version with all the bells and whistles and documents. Which is a bit different than the download version (which I ordered from Oracle way back) on a CD from Oracle, I think I also have the 9i download version on CD. > If you're just wanting to gain some > experience with it. > I believe I had installed 8i on Red Hat a few years back, but > I had to jump > through some hoops. > Well, I've been wanting to play with some databases for a while, but I have some real projects I will be working on also. Thanks, Brian

4 5

RE: Oracle
by Brian Densmore 08 Mar '05

08 Mar '05

I plan on using MySQL and probably PostgreSQL, too. But Oracle has lots of nice gui tools for doing design work and such. Plus I have several books on Oracle that have not even been read yet. So it's a learning thing, even though the final implementation may wind up being in MySQL or PostgreSQL, for licensing and distribution purposes. Which would also give me some opportunity to port from Oracle to other databases and learn the ins and outs of such portations. I have several server capable PCs laying around and plenty of space left on the home LAN. So it's an ideal project. As far as the 9i, yes I believe both the 8i and 9i download versions I have are personal versions. I do have one specifically for Linux. So you think Oracle is a doomed application? Does that also include: SQL Server, DB2, et al? I tend to agree, but I doubt they will entirely disappear, for a long time, kind of like COBOL. There will continue to be a number of older shops still using them far into the future, but the market will shift towards the OSS RDBMs. So, portation skills will be useful. Just looking for gotchas to look out for before diving in. Thanks, Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Hull > > Quoting Brian Densmore <>: > > > Right, I knew that, but this is a fullblown shrink-wrapped > enterprise level > > version with all the bells and whistles and documents. > Which is a bit > > different than the download version (which I ordered from > Oracle way back) on > > a CD from Oracle, I think I also have the 9i download version on CD. > > According to Oracle's web site, the versions available for > download are the full > versions. Even the documentation is available for download. > We've been using the > downloaded versions where I work in a production environment > (yes we have the > licenses) for a few years and I can tell you they are > identical to the packaged > versions we received in the mail after we bought the licenses. > > I prefer to grab the latest ISOs from Oracle though because > they have the most > recent patchsets applied. > > If you got 9i on a single CD, you must have a "personal" > version or something > because 9i requires three CDs... 10G requires only one CD, or > so I was told by > our Oracle rep. > > > Well, I've been wanting to play with some databases for a > while, but I have > > some real projects I will be working on also. > > Good luck. I usually reach for MySQL first. We've been using > the 4.1.2 version > with full support for referential integrity and transactions > with great success > in production for nearly a year with only one strange bug > that has recently been > addressed by the developers. > > MySQL is much easier to manage than Oracle, IMHO. But if > you're dealing with > money, it's probably a safer bet to stick with Oracle, though > I'm not sure > that's going to be true for much longer. >

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG